The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANAND ROY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case no. 2:24-cv-00744-JLB-KCD
STEPHEN M. SCHERR, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Anand Roy’s Unopposed
Motion to Consolidate, Appoint Co-Lead Plaintiffs, and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel.
(Doc. 22). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to consolidate this action with Yaun v. Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM (“Yaun”) for all
purposes, including trial. (Id.). After review of the motion, the Court concludes
that these cases involve enough common questions of law and fact to permit
consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and Local Rule 1.07(b).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)(2) permits a court to consolidate
matters presenting common questions of law or fact. In exercising its “considerable
discretion” over whether to consolidate multiple cases, the Court must consider:
(1) whether the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues
outweigh the specific risks of prejudice and confusion; (2) the burden that multiple
lawsuits present; (3) the amount of time consolidation would save; and (4) the
relative expense of consolidating a matter or proceeding on multiple trials.
Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation
omitted). “A joint trial is appropriate where there is clearly substantial overlap in
the issues, facts, evidence, and witnesses required for claims against” a defendant.
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Vizcay, 826 F.3d 1326, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
Ultimately, “[d]istrict judges in this circuit have been urged to make good use of
Rule 42(a) . . . in order to expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition
and confusion.” Young v. City of Augusta, 59 F.3d 1160, 1169 (11th Cir. 1995)
(quotation omitted).
After careful consideration, the Court finds that these cases are due to be
consolidated for all purposes, including discovery, motion practice, and trial. This
lawsuit and Yaun are shareholder derivative actions against Defendant Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc. (“Hertz”). (Doc. 22; Yaun, Doc. 1). Both lawsuits allege Hertz
made false and misleading statements relating to vehicle depreciation costs and
overstated market demand for electric vehicles, leading to a 19.31% drop in stock
price. (Doc. 22 at 4; Yaun, Doc. 1 at 7). Both actions bring claims for violating
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment. (See Doc. 1; see also Yaun, Doc. 1). Accordingly, the cases arise out of a
common question of law or fact.
Additionally, Plaintiff moves to be appointed co-lead plaintiff alongside Davis
Aiken Yaun, the lead plaintiff in Yaun, Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM. (Doc. 22
at 2, 6–7). “[N]o statutory authority exists for the appointment of a lead plaintiff in
shareholder derivative actions. . . .” Freeman on behalf of Tesla, Inc. v. Musk, 324
F.R.D. 73, 79 (D. Del. 2018). That said, courts have the inherent “authority to
appoint a lead plaintiff . . . in a derivative action in order to create an efficient case-
management structure.” Id. Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1(a)
requires that a plaintiff in a derivative action “fairly and adequately represent the
interests of shareholders . . . who are similarly situated in enforcing the right of the
corporation. . . .”
Here, both Roy and Yaun have agreed to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. (Doc. at
6-7). The Court finds that Roy and Yaun will fairly and adequately represent
shareholder interests. (See Doc. 22 at 7) (“Plaintiffs understand their duties and
obligations as derivative plaintiffs and will each fairly and adequately represent the
interests of Hertz shareholders in litigating the Consolidated Action and enforcing
the rights of Hertz.”); Plunkett v. Poyner, No. 08-60953-CIV-COHN, 2009 WL
5176542, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 22, 2009) (“The burden is on the defendants to show
that a plaintiff will not fairly and adequately represent a corporation and its
shareholders.”) (citation omitted). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.1(b)(1) and Florida Statute § 607.0741 instruct that a plaintiff bringing a
derivative action must have been a shareholder at the time of the complained-of
conduct. Section 607.0741 also requires that the plaintiff be a shareholder at the
time the action is commenced. Roy and Yaun meet these requirements. Both are
current shareholders of Hertz and were shareholders at all relevant times. (Doc. 22
at 7; Yaun, Doc. 1 at ¶ 7). Thus, it is appropriate that Roy and Yaun serve as co-
lead plaintiffs.
Last, Plaintiff moves to approve Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The Brown
Law Firm as co-lead counsel in the consolidated action. (Doc. 22 at 7–11). A court,
“if it sees fit, may appoint one or more attorneys as liaison counsel, lead counsel, or
trial counsel for the consolidated cases and can assign the designated lawyers
specific responsibilities.” KBC Asset Mgmt. NV on behalf of Chemed Corp. v.
McNamara, 78 F. Supp. 3d 599, 607 (D. Del. 2015) (citation omitted, internal
quotations omitted and cleaned up). “The selection of lead counsel in a shareholder
derivative action filed in federal court is left to the sound discretion of the Court.”
Id. (citation omitted). “The Court must determine which counsel will best serve the
interest of the plaintiffs with respect to experience and prior success record, the
number, size, and extent of involvement of represented litigations, the advanced
stage of the proceedings in a particular suit, and the nature of the causes of action
alleged.” Id. (citation omitted, internal quotations omitted and cleaned up).
Here, neither party has objected to the approval of the proposed co-lead
counsel nor is the Court aware of any reason Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The
Brown Law Firm should not be approved. Gainey McKenna & Egleston has
extensive experience in complex class action litigation, shareholder derivative
litigation, and securities fraud. (Doc. 22 at 9–10; Doc. 22-3 at 2–12). Additionally,
the firm promises to defend its client and use all resources available to achieve the
best outcome. (Doc. 22-3 at 2).
Similarly, The Brown Law Firm has received favorable outcomes in several
similar actions in both federal and state courts. (Doc. 22-2 at 2). Indeed, it
specializes in shareholder derivative litigation. (Doc. 22 at 10; Doc. 22-2 at 2).
Further, both firms are already familiar with the facts and claims of these
two (2) related cases. The Brown Law Firm is counsel for Plaintiff in this case and
drafted the Complaint (Doc. 1). Likewise, Gainey McKenna & Egleston are counsel
for Plaintiff in Yaun, Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM and worked on the
Complaint. (See Yaun, Doc. 1). Thus, both firms have demonstrated that they are
well-qualified to advocate for plaintiffs in the consolidated action.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Consolidate, Appoint Co-Lead
Plaintiffs, and Appoint Co-Lead Counsel (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. The
Court consolidates Case Nos. 2:24-cv-00744-JLB-KCD and 2:24-cv-
00891-JLB-NPM, for all purposes.
2. The Court designates this case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00744-JLB-KCD, as
the lead case.
3. The parties are DIRECTED to submit all future filings utilizing that
case number.
4. Anand Roy and Davis Aiken Yaun SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS
CO-LEAD PLAINTIFFS.
5. Gainey McKenna & Egleston and The Brown Law Firm SHALL BE
DESIGNATED AS CO-LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS.
6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of this Order in the
consolidated case, Case No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM. The Clerk is
further DIRECTED to terminate any pending deadlines in Case No.
2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM and administratively close the file in Case
No. 2:24-cv-00891-JLB-NPM.
ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida, on June 27, 2025.
if, 3 Lf = -
Khe A & Lil eas tee
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE